You do understand that those are jails or for a prison that are for low threat/minimum crime convicts, and you'll only find a handful that are actually like that(excluding a white collar rich person jail/prison. But most times they get house arrest or get sent an actual hotel.) The internet, cable, and computers are for more than just the inmates. The staff and sheriffs use more of it then the people themselves.

I was hoping you'd be able to distinguish the difference between inmate and staff use. I guess I was wrong.

I'm sorry, but condoning the creation of new addicts by legalization is not acceptable.

The funny thing is, you only see monetary costs in treatment. Try lost productivity, welfare, permanent disfigurement and disability, unwanted pregnancies and welfare for those children. I could go on.

I assumed the monetary focus was your point, considering we were talking about your concerns over taxes. There's significant evidence pointing towards legalisation (or at least decriminalisation) and education doing more to alleviate these problems than a seemingly unwinnable war on drugs which leads to criminalising otherwise upstanding members of society and social stigma that can prevent people seeking treatment until their problems become much more complicated.

From the problems you listed, I assume you are also in favour of banning alcohol and having much tighter control over potentially addictive medicines.

I was hoping you'd be able to distinguish the difference between inmate and staff use. I guess I was wrong.

Wait, so it's a problem if white-collar criminal types can use the internet at a minimum security prison, which the rest of the staff use as well?

I see no problem with that, those types are less danger to society in my eyes, than the brutal murderers, rapists, etc, so I have no problem with them using the internet.

And on your comment of this knowledge coming from watching TV? No, I don't watch TV, this comes from information, that I've read, and that I've listened too from an old english professor of mine who teaches at one of the nearby prisons.

The people there get treated like downright shit, what's a little internet going to hurt?

They are in fucking prison. They deserve nothing more than stale bread and water.

So? Maybe we would do better if we actually had a system that tried to rehabilitate prisoners rather than endlessly punish them. I think some European countries do it to fairly good success, along with keeping the amount of people incarcerated in their country way below the U.S.

And yeah, maybe I seem a little too lenient, but my model philosophy is John Locke, not Thomas Hobbes.

You would assume incorrectly, especially since I even posted that I support the legalization of marijuana.

Yes, but marijuana is one of the lesser harmful, less addictive substances people (ab)use recreationally. Alcohol and certain painkillers can be as addictive, and socially and medically harmful as cocaine and heroine; in fact your list of "lost productivity, welfare, permanent disfigurement and disability, unwanted pregnancies and welfare for those children" pretty much highlights the social harm caused by alcoholism.

It's about as practical and logical as people thinking legalization of hard drugs is in any way beneficial to society. Drug addicts are not productive members of society. They not only take down themselves, but their families as well.

Which is why treating them, and ending the crime of drug use is the only answer.

I pose a question to you, would you think a person who drinks a beer on a Friday after work when he get's home is a drain on society?

In 1919 he was considered a drain, in fact drinking that beer could land him in Jail. But wait there's more once he went to jail for drinking a beer he would meet professional criminals who offered him a job dealing beer, to protect his beer business he bought guns and was forced to kill others to protect his beer.

So when you look at the history of alcohol in America you can see a lot of parallels, sure there where some people who drank a lot ruined their families over alcohol, but many more people can sit and enjoy a beer or two and not have problems. The same is true with all illegal drugs, Heroin is one of the best pain killers ever, cocaine is a topical pain killer and has the ability to prevent nausea. With these drug illegal there is no option in our supposedly free market to legally buy them for the proper use. Saying that a junkie is a lowlife scum is not a good enough answer to keeping these things illegal, because an Alcoholic and an over eater could also be called lowlife scum, but it is perfectly legal to be either.

I'm pretty sure some of these people are basing their facts off of the information they learned about drugs in elementary school..

Yes drugs like cocaine, heroine and meth are very dangerous and highly addictive but LSD should not be bunched with those drugs. I've personally never done acid but I know it is one of the least addictive/dangerous drugs.

I also find it hilarious that people condone the drinking alcohol over many drugs.

It does affect me. I pay taxes that pay for supporting these lowlives since addicts are unable to function in everyday life. In addition, widespread health problems have been proven from these drugs. You expect me to be perfectly content with letting my premiums rise even more simply so these losers can get their fix? Seriously?

And you currently do all that with Alcohol and Tobacco? Your roads are paved with Alcohol and Tobacco taxes. You want to stop those too?

People get addicted to just about anything. You cannot criminalize addicts, that is the real crime.

“A fool is not a person who does not know something. Rather, a fool is a person who is given information but who chooses to ignore what he is given based on how he wants things to be, rather than how things are."

I am an abuser. I have to drink to get drunk, smoke until I pass out, and abuse until I am dead or nearly, in my case. Yet, in all the things I have abused, nothing ever really gets me addicted.

Used to abuse to get away. I don't need to get away anymore. I'm truly happy now. It was a long road to get here. I fell off many times. I have seen sober for over a year now, and I didn't even need DAA. Hahah.

I have never been to jail for my abuse, never stolen, nor not went to work. There are more people like me. Especially, if you count alcohol. Then there are people that abuse until death and non-productivity. You just hear about them a lot more.

Nothing will prevent abuse, it's a much bigger problem then just the drugs. The real question and the real problem. Why do people use drugs? That is the real problem we need to solve.

Most people don't want to go down that road. They just want to ban, jail and trivialize these peoples problems.

Hey, Rukentuts, I don't know what afterschool special you're watching that paints all drug users to be some poor, distraught, I need a handout and other people to pay for my well being so I can score a hit type of lowlife, but most are not.

In fact, most hard drug users I know have great jobs, and families. My best friend is a recovering heroin addict, and he had a job for 3 years, with health insurance. He also paid his taxes on time.

I also know an eye surgeon, and a lawyer who are both habitual cocaine users.

In fact, most drug abusers have a steady income. And, in fact, they function in normal life quite well. Yes, they might have times where they'll miss a day or two of work, but they'll keep on working.

You just stereotype people. Most drug addicts don't show the usual symptoms of being drug addicts, and in fact, hide it quite well.

All drugs should be decriminalized, which is different then making them legal. Ones with no physical addictions (such as weed, mushrooms, acid) should be legalized the same way Alcohol is. The rest should remain illegal, but you shouldn't go to jail for using them, rather you should be placed in a facility to break your addiction then a half-way house to reintegrate you to society. Those dependence facilities and halfway houses can be funded by a small percentage of what the US currently spends to prosecute and incarcerate people for marijuana.

All drugs legalized, including prescription drugs on ethical grounds. Forget the pragmatic arguments--- are you willing to come into my house which I'm willing to defend with a gun to stop me from doing drugs? If not, why are you sending the police instead?

All drugs should be decriminalized, which is different then making them legal. Ones with no physical addictions (such as weed, mushrooms, acid) should be legalized the same way Alcohol is. The rest should remain illegal, but you shouldn't go to jail for using them, rather you should be placed in a facility to break your addiction then a half-way house to reintegrate you to society. Those dependence facilities and halfway houses can be funded by a small percentage of what the US currently spends to prosecute and incarcerate people for marijuana.

Not sure if I agree with this. I think full legalization for everything is the best solution, not just because it'll weaken cartels and boost income via taxes and whatnot, but also because it doesn't matter if it's illegal - that heroin addict is still gonna get his fix. If you apply the same type of rules to drug use as you do to alcohol use (which is itself a drug, really), I don't think it'd be too chaotic.

Not sure if I agree with this. I think full legalization for everything is the best solution, not just because it'll weaken cartels and boost income via taxes and whatnot, but also because it doesn't matter if it's illegal - that heroin addict is still gonna get his fix. If you apply the same type of rules to drug use as you do to alcohol use (which is itself a drug, really), I don't think it'd be too chaotic.

Not to mention, there's a historical precedent for the weakening of cartels. Once Prohibition was ended, the majority of the Mafia families started to lose vast amounts of power, seeing as how their cash cow had been milked.

Not to mention, there's a historical precedent for the weakening of cartels. Once Prohibition was ended, the majority of the Mafia families started to lose vast amounts of power, seeing as how their cash cow had been milked.

I'd be interested to see how the weakening of a drug cartel would affect countries like Mexico and Colombia.

Not sure if I agree with this. I think full legalization for everything is the best solution, not just because it'll weaken cartels and boost income via taxes and whatnot, but also because it doesn't matter if it's illegal - that heroin addict is still gonna get his fix. If you apply the same type of rules to drug use as you do to alcohol use (which is itself a drug, really), I don't think it'd be too chaotic.

I'm aware, but decriminalizing it would mean those who are breaking the law for getting their fix aren't thrown in jail, but rather sent to detox centers. I'm not really comfortable with heroin and meth being available at the 7-11 down the street, honestly.

---------- Post added 2012-11-16 at 01:16 AM ----------

Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK

I'd be interested to see how the weakening of a drug cartel would affect countries like Mexico and Colombia.

Less and Less, as it turns out. Many of the Border Cartels in northern Mexico are turning away from all-drug income to kidnapping and protection rackets. If we had legalized weed in the nineties it would have crushed a lot of those cartels quite quickly.